An ongoing review of politics and culture

Over at the House Next Door, Andrew Johnston’s write up of the penultimate episode of The Wirebegins by asking:

Is the best episode ever of the best TV drama ever QED the best single TV episode of all time? That’s not a philosophical conundrum I face where “Late Editions” is concerned, since my pick for the best series of all time is The Sopranos. Those who believe The Wire to be the finest series in the history of the medium, however, are going to spend a lot of time debating the question, since after two viewings it’s pretty clear that “Late Editions” is The Wire’s single best episode.

Agreed that this might be the best single episode of the series, though the Ep in Season Three where Stringer Bell dies is up there as well.

I’d never dream of arguing against the general greatness of either episode. Both are incredibly satisfying and handle their climactic moments with an almost breathtaking confidence. And obviously, Johnston and Seitz have every right to their opinion about what episode is best.

But I do want to caution against the tendency to list concluding episodes with big events as the best. I think it’s natural, with any TV series, to look at episodes that provide some sort of game-changer or major resolution as the strongest (no doubt a poll of Lost fans would find favorite episodes clustered around the pilot and the season finales). These episodes tend to be the most memorable because of the catastrophic (from a narrative perspective) events they portray, but, especially with The Wire, I wonder if they’re really the best the show has to offer, or if the tendency to elevate them isn’t simply a result Big Things Happening.

I’d argue that where The Wire really shines is in the middle of its seasons. There are a number of shows that consistently provide strong beginnings and strong closes, but in a way that’s an easy thing to do. The Wire, on the other hand, really excels at weaving the complex narrative tapestries that comprise the bulk of the season. It’s solid all the way through.

Even still, I don’t know if I could pick a “best” episode at all. Especially with a show like The Wire, which, in each season, has a single, closely integrated story arc, it seems unhelpful to attempt to pick a best. They all work together, and singling one out as better is problematic because the best episodes only work as well as they do because of how they connect with the rest.

On a related note, here’s the BHtv clip in which Ezra and I discuss the greatness of episode nine and how the show’s political outlook makes it stronger.

Leave a Reply

I guess I’m alone in this, but I felt the Wire reached a pretty breathtaking pinnacle in season two, which it has never reached again. The other seasons are great, don’t get me wrong, but I feel like that season is head and shoulders above the rest. I find it strange that so many people think season four is the best— I found it overdetermined and at times heavy-handed in a way the series is usually so good at avoiding. I’m with you on not picking a best episode; they all work interdependently with others in their arc.

Does anyone else feel that the Wire – perhaps because of its impressive scope – has become the television equivalent of a Rorschach test? Ezra Klein argues that Simon’s ideological critique assumes the need for a radical overhaul of our socio-economic institutions, which dovetails nicely with his own progressive political leanings. Peter Suderman, on the other hand, thinks the show implicitly endorses a libertarian perspective through its skepticism of institutions and faith in individual redemption. This explanation is entirely plausible, but it also coincides with his political outlook.

I don’t think this tendency towards projection is limited to liberal or libertarian viewers, either. For example, I could easily see a social conservative arguing that the show’s bleak outlook reflects the breakdown of the family and traditional moral values. I could even imagine a technocratic liberal finding solace in Carcetti’s uneasy marriage of idealism and urban political maneuvering, or the fleeting success of Colvin’s educational pilot program in Season 4.

It’s possible. I think one of the show’s strengths is that it supports multiple complex interpretations equally well. (Didn’t someone say that the mark of a true classic it’s endlessly interpretable?) That said, I try not to impose libertarian interpretations where they don’t belong — I dislike critics who read everything as supporting their politics — and I’ve tried to be very cautious about the way I’ve done it, and in this case, I’m actually convinced that this show, which is in many ways the product of very strong liberal impulses, actually presents a pretty strong libertarian worldview.

But there’s probably something to what you’re saying: The show seems to mimic the complexity of the real world, meaning that however one sees politics in reality is probably how one will view the show.

I’m actually convinced that this show, which is in many ways the product of very strong liberal impulses, actually presents a pretty strong libertarian worldview.

Really? A show that demonstrates again and again that individuals lack the agency to create meaningful change in their lives? It’s funny, I’d say Kenard pouring lighter fluid on that cat is about the purist symbol of unfettered capitalism since, well, Katrina. I’d like to endorse the post Jim Manzi posted earlier this week here about the rise of libertarian utopians; there was a time when the refreshing thing about libertarians was that they were the ones willing to concede that the free market left people starving on the street. They just believed, on balance, the conditions that left them starving on the street was better for society on the whole. Now we have the Megan McArdle libertarians who still endorse laissez-faire capitalism, but do so while denying that it has pretty much any negative consequences at all.

What could be a purer libertarian enterprise than the organized drug trade? Marlo’s unit is an absolute paragon of consciousness capitalism, the free-market unfettered by such quaint niceties as morality, compassion, or human responsibility…. That, if you ask me, is the central message of The Wire, that when the accretion of capital is divorced from the basic responsibilities of interpersonal conduct, there is no limit to the suffering and degradation that can follow.

I don’t think the Wire denies the possibility of individual agency. Quite the contrary, in fact. I think the point Suderman is making is that the Wire emphasizes the harsh indifference of bureaucracy and human institutions. I also think there are a number examples of individual characters – Namond comes to mind – who transcend their circumstances and escape.

I’m also confused by your characterization of Marlo. To me, Marlo and his crew are brutal precisely because they operate outside the norms of commercial capitalism. It any wonder that Marlo chooses not to set up shop in Hamsterdam in season 3? If violence is taken out of the equation, his unique ferocity is no longer an asset. I also think it’s notable that Stringer Bell, the drug kingpin most averse to “dropping bodies,” was in the process of becoming a respectable downtown businessman when he died.

—

To be fair, I think this exchange demonstrates the ambiguity of the Wire’s thematic underpinnings. Cherry-picking examples and constructing a post-facto interpretation of the show’s ideological perspective is an interesting exercise, but I’m not sure that it says anything definitive about Simon’s larger point. Simon doesn’t strike me as a systematic, big-picture thinker (and this is not intended to be an insult). He has done an incredible job at portraying the immediacy of Baltimore’s urban decline, but he never offers a concrete prescription for change beyond vague pronouncements about the need to overhaul “the system.” Failed experiments like Hamsterdam and Colvin’s pilot program imply that incremental change is a chimera, but at the end of the day, I’m not really sure what his alternative is.

I don’t want to get too into this because I’ve got a piece making the full argument in a coming issue of NR. But while I agree that the show often presents a limited view of human agency, it typically suggests that agency is constricted by flawed systems and institutions.

Will’s right that the show isn’t clearly in favor of one politics or another, and I think it would probably be possible to draw out a number of liberal ideas from it. However, I still believe that the most prominent idea that arises from the series is that even the smartest and most well-intentioned collective action eventually fails because of human weakness and selfishness, which is a fairly libertarian notion.

And I hope I don’t come across as a Utopian; I am, for example, deeply opposed to drug prohibition, but I wouldn’t pretend for a moment that legalizing most or all drugs wouldn’t have some very negative outcomes for some individuals. On the other hand, I also think that, on balance, the negatives would be less than they are now.

I totally recognize that the question must remain open, but I really don’t get using Namond as an example to prove Peter’s point. Setting aside the fact that the redemption of a single character can’t say much generally about a series with dozens of characters— Namond is lucky to be included in the pilot program. He’s lucky Bunny Colvin worked in that program. He’s lucky Bunny was in a position to take a child into his home, and lucky that Bunny wanted to bring him into his home. He’s lucky that Bunny was from the streets and could make an appeal to Wee Bay. He’s lucky that Wee Bay agreed.

Certainly an adoption by a benevolent family with the resources to raise a child can’t be, in the real world, a vehicle to remove children from danger and hardship; and I don’t see how it endorses a libertarian worldview, at any rate.